PDA

View Full Version : Explore what the future holds ... Interact


atlfootr
06-12-2008, 10:02 AM
I saw this today on Good Morning American, thought it was interesting enough to share w/ everyone else.
http://earth2100.tv/

atlfootr
06-12-2008, 10:38 AM
Come on, certianly you care of your kids future :rolleyes:

atlfootr
06-12-2008, 10:39 AM
Thanks flipper+

jmac197
06-12-2008, 10:44 AM
Ok I'll bite.....

While I agree we need to be smart about using our resources, I just can't lend any credence to the doom and gloom naysayers. Should we us technology to create a healthier planet and environment...absolutely, Should the US be the only payer of this technology....hell no.

flipper
06-12-2008, 10:45 AM
How did I know.....nothin' but bad news. Some of it has already started like the gas prices part.

CReasner
06-12-2008, 10:59 AM
wow, that site confirmed all my fears

mcdoon
06-12-2008, 11:25 AM
Yikes!

The doom and gloom crowd is always standing around trying to convince everyone how bad things are. They're convinced that in the whole history of the world things have never been as bad as they now, that they're only going to get worse, and we've all "got to do something about it". I don't give these people the time of day. Their arrogance knows no limits. They think they've got it all figured out.

"Climate change"? It's just been around since the dawn of time. These same people were screaming about man-made global warming until someone pointed out that it's bunk and we in fact might be headed for global cooling. That got 'em to scrambling and they fell back on "climate change". Snake oil salesmen.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Words to live by. Do yourself a favor and read as many opinions on a topic as you can lay your hands on before you make up your mind.

ProTour X9
06-12-2008, 11:53 AM
I did a little search: Disproving Climate Change (http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html)


Read the whole thing.

JimN
06-12-2008, 12:42 PM
Artic ice is melting, just as it has for millenia. Antactic ice is melting, too and it looks like that's one major player in the planet's ability to to cool itself. As the Antarctic ice melts, the salinity of the Ocean Conveyor changes and affects it's flow.

Linky:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9986 and
http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/gribbin.asp

Since it's never a good idea to only read the info from one side, here's an opposing viewpoint:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/030602/2gulfstream_2.htm and
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gulf-stream-engine-weakening-say-scientists-517581.html


And, for some Doom and Gloom:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml and
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/fade-to-black-is-this-the-end-of-oil-845092.html

Gonzo
06-12-2008, 01:22 PM
I think we are all going to die in a firey ball of blood and guts....... I wish I had a video camera and some sterno I could make me a movie too!

TMCNo1
06-12-2008, 01:23 PM
I hope Ric sells his boat before then!

TMCNo1
06-12-2008, 01:31 PM
Hang on Rob, help is on the way, Shamrock will be there shortly, http://www.tmcowners.com/teamtalk/showpost.php?p=503216&postcount=1067

M-Funf
06-12-2008, 01:34 PM
Fact is that our solar system is doomed whether we make changes or not. The sun will grow exponentially. It will engulf Mercury, Venus, and earth. After that, it will retract and die down into a white dwarf, and eventually a black dwarf. Of course, this won't happen for about 2BB years, according to scientists :rolleyes:

mcdoon
06-12-2008, 01:50 PM
I did a little search: Disproving Climate Change (http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html)


Read the whole thing.

Good article, PT X9. Anyone reading JimN's links should read this one as well. Your day will be a whole brighter -- guaranteed!

M-Funf
06-12-2008, 02:02 PM
I like this :D

36274

Roonie's
06-12-2008, 02:04 PM
I did a little search: Disproving Climate Change (http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html)


Read the whole thing.

Using editorial pieces to prove or disprove anything makes me laugh. It goes for the original post of this thread as well.

Jorski
06-12-2008, 03:09 PM
**I did a little search: Disproving Climate Change**

I have said it many times on this site...stick to the science and you will understand how significant this problem is.

When you "do a little search" you can find some editorial that supports ANY position. Frankly, the misinformation about this matter that gets passed on and accepted on this site is almost overwhelming.

Sigh!:confused:

If you are interested what the world's major national Science Academies have to say you can find a summary here:


Scientists Warn, Politicians Scorn
11 Jun 08

The world’s leading scientists this week issued yet another statement urging immediate action on climate change. The latest call to action was authored by the Science Academies of all the G8 nations, as well as China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa. ...


http://www.desmogblog.com/scientists-warn-politicians-scorn

SkiDog
06-12-2008, 03:17 PM
I saw this today on Good Morning American, thought it was interesting enough to share w/ everyone else.
http://earth2100.tv/

Written by a bunch of pessimest democrates!

MYMC
06-12-2008, 03:26 PM
**I did a little search: Disproving Climate Change**

I have said it many times on this site...stick to the science and you will understand how significant this problem is.

When you "do a little search" you can find some editorial that supports ANY position. Frankly, the misinformation about this matter that gets passed on and accepted on this site is almost overwhelming.

Sigh!:confused:

If you are interested what the world's major national Science Academies have to say:


Scientists Warn, Politicians Scorn
11 Jun 08

The world’s leading scientists this week issued yet another statement urging immediate action on climate change. The latest call to action was authored by the Science Academies of all the G8 nations, as well as China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa. ...


http://www.desmogblog.com/scientists-warn-politicians-scorn

Here we go again...since we are still coming out of the ice age I would expect things to get warmer...by definition an ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in an expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Glaciologically, ice age is often used to mean a period of ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres; by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist)...

I cant wait till the mods see fit to delete this thread...let the name calling begin!

mcdoon
06-12-2008, 03:34 PM
I have said it many times on this site...stick to the science and you will understand how significant this problem is.


Did you read ProTour X9's link? Did I miss something? Because it sure looks to me like they used science to finger the pro-global warming types as either blatant liars or ignorant. I can't find a hole in their logic, can you?

JimN
06-12-2008, 03:52 PM
"Stick to the science"? Whose science? It's not as objective as some would like to think. Maybe the data collection is fairly objective, but how it's reported is far from it. Most of it is laid out and worded so the funding doesn't stop.

The problem with thinking our "science" has a good handle on this is that our data keeping methods are pretty new compared with how long this has, or hasn't, been happening. We just don't know exactly what will happen, or when. Anyone who thinks we do is either trying to get rich by selling their "facts", has stock in companies that will benefit from this information being made public or will gain politically from it. As I said in another post, meteorology is just guessing what will happen, based on statistical analysis of the records we have, accurate or not. Any science that is based on making predictions is flawed by the very fact that it's impossible to have a sample that's large enough to remove any doubt about the accuracy of the conclusions used to form the hypotheses.

In the Earth's time line, we're a spec. As far as the Earth's species, alive or extinct, we're a spec. We weren't a major food source for other critters, we may/may not be more intelligent than all of the others (but we have come up with some pretty cool inventions) and as a species, we do some of the most stupid, arrogant and, heinous things that can be imagined by only the most creative minds.

In our arrogance, we think it's a huge tragedy that the climate is changing so fast because of us and also, in the same flight of arrogance, we think the fact that humans dying out will be bad. For the rest of the planet, it's probably the best thing that could possibly happen. The Earth doesn't give a rat's azz if we live or die. It's a group of systems that exist for the benefit of all species, for as long as it lasts.

This means we need to be smarter in the future, because we have done some incredibly stupid things. If anyone has been to the Grand Canyon, they will have seen signs that say "Take only photos, leave only footprints". In small areas, it's somewhat possible but globally, it's not.

O_D_Y_S_S_E_Y
06-12-2008, 04:03 PM
I'll match the editors if anyone is interested....Thats funny....



There's Big Bucks to be made promoting the hoax. Take a look at this clipping from a "green" directory site:


Great News!! We now have a 34 ACRE NURSERY SITE underway in Maine with a wood and solar heated greenhouse for tree seedling production. This will enable us to grow out millions of seedlings for transplanting to deforested areas across the north woods.
If you would like to DIRECTLY OFFSET YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT there is a PAYPAL DONATION button under the picture. ANY AMOUNT will help further the CO2 Reduction project!! Thanks!!


Editors Note: We have an even better offer: For every 10 bucks you send us, we will hold our breath for one full minute before exhaling the CO2 into the atmosphere. This "carbon offset" will make you feel good about driving your Hummer to the next Global Warming demonstration.

MYMC
06-12-2008, 04:38 PM
Did you read ProTour X9's link? Did I miss something? Because it sure looks to me like they used science to finger the pro-global warming types as either blatant liars or ignorant. I can't find a hole in their logic, can you?

"Stick to the science"? Whose science? It's not as objective as some would like to think. Maybe the data collection is fairly objective, but how it's reported is far from it. Most of it is laid out and worded so the funding doesn't stop.

The problem with thinking our "science" has a good handle on this is that our data keeping methods are pretty new compared with how long this has, or hasn't, been happening. We just don't know exactly what will happen, or when. Anyone who thinks we do is either trying to get rich by selling their "facts", has stock in companies that will benefit from this information being made public or will gain politically from it. As I said in another post, meteorology is just guessing what will happen, based on statistical analysis of the records we have, accurate or not. Any science that is based on making predictions is flawed by the very fact that it's impossible to have a sample that's large enough to remove any doubt about the accuracy of the conclusions used to form the hypotheses.

In the Earth's time line, we're a spec. As far as the Earth's species, alive or extinct, we're a spec. We weren't a major food source for other critters, we may/may not be more intelligent than all of the others (but we have come up with some pretty cool inventions) and as a species, we do some of the most stupid, arrogant and, heinous things that can be imagined by only the most creative minds.

In our arrogance, we think it's a huge tragedy that the climate is changing so fast because of us and also, in the same flight of arrogance, we think the fact that humans dying out will be bad. For the rest of the planet, it's probably the best thing that could possibly happen. The Earth doesn't give a rat's azz if we live or die. It's a group of systems that exist for the benefit of all species, for as long as it lasts.

This means we need to be smarter in the future, because we have done some incredibly stupid things. If anyone has been to the Grand Canyon, they will have seen signs that say "Take only photos, leave only footprints". In small areas, it's somewhat possible but globally, it's not.

I'll match the editors if anyone is interested....Thats funny....



There's Big Bucks to be made promoting the hoax. Take a look at this clipping from a "green" directory site:


Great News!! We now have a 34 ACRE NURSERY SITE underway in Maine with a wood and solar heated greenhouse for tree seedling production. This will enable us to grow out millions of seedlings for transplanting to deforested areas across the north woods.
If you would like to DIRECTLY OFFSET YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT there is a PAYPAL DONATION button under the picture. ANY AMOUNT will help further the CO2 Reduction project!! Thanks!!


Editors Note: We have an even better offer: For every 10 bucks you send us, we will hold our breath for one full minute before exhaling the CO2 into the atmosphere. This "carbon offset" will make you feel good about driving your Hummer to the next Global Warming demonstration.

You guys ever read a sign that said "DON'T FEED THE BEARS"...it applies here...Jorski is the bear.

The last time this came up he needed to resort to personal attacks to further his cause. Watch this episode of South Park: http://www.tv.com/south-park/smug-alert!/episode/687553/recap.html

SMUG alert!

RexDog1
06-12-2008, 04:41 PM
I cant wait till the mods see fit to delete this thread...let the name calling begin!


we have Mods?:confused:

ProTour X9
06-12-2008, 04:46 PM
I don't support the site I posted, just putting it out there to see if you thought it was bogus or not. I do know theres plenty of ways to rid of carbon. Removing it couldn't hurt could it? I think we should rid of pollution for cleanliness in cities. Maybe stop cutting down the rainforest. I still don't know why everyone has to be pessimistic.

Basically I don't want anyone mad at me.

Jorski
06-12-2008, 04:50 PM
Where do I start McDoon?

First of all, let's define science as Peer reviewed science.

Don't you find it curious (as in a big gaping hole in their logic) that they chose to "publish" in a newspaper and on the internet according to the article. In science, the term "publish" is used to describe the process of peer review, where you sunmit your findings to journal, and a panel of scientists, check your assumption, your procedures, your statistical anaysis etc for completeness, scientific rigour and correct mathmatical functions. They also, decide if the conclusions drawn by the writer are reasonable, given their evidence.

None of that here !

For a specific hole in their argument: let's look at one of the basic claims in the article:

"It is the sun" or solar irradiance:

Several peer reviewed papers have disproven this claim. In fact the IPCC reviewed all of the kown peer reviewed science and concluded that warming we have experienced has been affected 800% more by human burning of fossil fuels than by solar variation.

BTW: they contort the laws of thermal dynamics in one of their other claims. Namely, that there isn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere affect temperature...utter nonsense.

It's funny, you know; they throw around some pseudo-science and an equation or two and if they happen to conclude something that you like , bingo then we have a winner ! The implicit conclusion when you do this is that the national Academies of Science of all developed countries are not only wrong, they are incompetent...just doesn't wash.

They quote, Tim Patterson, who is the kingpin of Solar Forcing as a cause. Unfortunately, he never uses a graph that goes beyond 1980. This is because, if you extend his graphs including modern data, they simply fall apart.

They are so wrong about ice melt that it is funny, same goes for the farcicle Friends of Science petition which includes dead guys, and dozens of scientists who say that they disagree with the petition and never signed it.

I could go on, however, ultimately, if you think that article is science I fear for our planet more now than I did before.

Jorski
06-12-2008, 04:52 PM
I do know theres plenty of ways to (get) rid of carbon. Removing it couldn't hurt could it?

Ther is not "plenty of ways to get rid of carbon. Removing it, called sequestration, would be very helpful, but we are years away from doing that successfully.

ProTour X9
06-12-2008, 05:01 PM
Phytoplankton, sinking CO2 underwater,

Heres Popular Science's 10 Ideas to Save the Planet (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-06/10-audacious-ideas-save-planet)

MYMC
06-12-2008, 05:17 PM
Where do I start McDoon?

First of all, let's define science as Peer reviewed science.

Don't you find it curious (as in a big gaping hole in their logic) that they chose to "publish" in a newspaper and on the internet according to the article. In science, the term "publish" is used to describe the process of peer review, where you sunmit your findings to journal, and a panel of scientists, check your assumption, your procedures, your statistical anaysis etc for completeness, scientific rigour and correct mathmatical functions. They also, decide if the conclusions drawn by the writer are reasonable, given their evidence.

None of that here !

For a specific hole in their argument: let's look at one of the basic claims in the article:

"It is the sun" or solar irradiance:

Several peer reviewed papers have disproven this claim. In fact the IPCC reviewed all of the kown peer reviewed science and concluded that warming we have experienced has been affected 800% more by human burning of fossil fuels than by solar variation.

BTW: they contort the laws of thermal dynamics in one of their other claims. Namely, that there isn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere affect temperature...utter nonsense.

It's funny, you know; they throw around some pseudo-science and an equation or two and if they happen to conclude something that you like , bingo then we have a winner ! The implicit conclusion when you do this is that the national Academies of Science of all developed countries are not only wrong, they are incompetent...just doesn't wash.

They quote, Tim Patterson, who is the kingpin of Solar Forcing as a cause. Unfortunately, he never uses a graph that goes beyond 1980. This is because, if you extend his graphs including modern data, they simply fall apart.

They are so wrong about ice melt that it is funny, same goes for the farcicle Friends of Science petition which includes dead guys, and dozens of scientists who say that they disagree with the petition and never signed it.

I could go on, however, ultimately, if you think that article is science I fear for our planet more now than I did before.

Quoted from:Science and Society Analysis
Is political correctness damaging science?
Philip Hunter
Those who oppose the prevailing orthodoxy risk being branded 'flat earthers' and cast into a wilderness where funding and publications are hard to obtain
A similar sort of polarization in the field of global warming has significant implications for future policies on ecology and biodiversity. As with GMOs, the initial pressure came primarily from an industrial lobby that was anxious to avoid carbon taxes and other measures to enforce more efficient energy production. Since then, sentiment has swung progressively behind the proposition that global warming is a done deal, which has increasingly marginalized those who believe there is still uncertainty over whether it is occurring. According to Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London (UK), the idea that human-controlled emissions of greenhouse gases cause global warming has become an article of faith, and any criticism of this notion is taken almost as blasphemy. This, he argued, has led to major decisions by governments on the basis of immature science, while the case for global warming is still unproven (Stott, 2004). Whether one accepts Stott's arguments—additional evidence in favour of the anthropomorphic global warming proposition has arisen since he wrote the article—it is hard to dispute his assertion that the arguments deployed by a growing number of climate-change scientists use language that tends to be authoritarian and religious in nature, designed to silence those who question man's role in global warming.

For those that would like to sip a different brand of Kool Aid: http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/A_Hot_Topic_Blog.html

mcdoon
06-12-2008, 05:50 PM
I could go on, however, ultimately, if you think that article is science I fear for our planet more now than I did before.

That's funny, I would have thought you were already at the max state of fear. Nice to know I still have it!

You like the term "science" used very carefully obviously, but your side has so abused its meaning and lied about the "facts" that you can't fault those of us who are looking beyond the IPCC and its team of "experts". The fact that there's still people like you around who have unwavering faith in these people is what I fear most.

flipper
06-12-2008, 06:03 PM
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

MYMC
06-12-2008, 06:19 PM
If you dig deep enough you can always find a bright side...

mcdoon
06-12-2008, 06:44 PM
If you dig deep enough you can always find a bright side...

Now that's my kind of funny.

Even better is knowing there's a Cannuck or two with a sense of humor!

Roonie's
06-12-2008, 06:46 PM
Did you read ProTour X9's link? Did I miss something? Because it sure looks to me like they used science to finger the pro-global warming types as either blatant liars or ignorant. I can't find a hole in their logic, can you?

Very second sentence on the link of ProTourX9's link and the actual title to the essay........

"Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?"

It states in the title it is an editorial. Makes for great hollywood drama but lacks substance regardless the position. Again editorials to prove or disprove the whole topic makes me laugh out loud.

wakeX2wake
06-13-2008, 11:51 AM
i hate to keep getting in these but... i really do think we could all take a step back

70% of the Earth is covered by water which leaves only 12.5% inhabitable by humans... So... me believing that 12.5% of all the Earth's surface which is inhabited by humans (who at most estimates have inhabited the Earth only .5% of the Earth's current life) are going to significantly alter it... just don't buy it.

IMHO "we" (as humans) only know enought to be dangerous to ourselves... kind of like myself working on a motor... i know a little but i also know i don't know enough to diagnose a real issue... i know how it works but am far from technically knowledgeable as say a JimN to be able to make an intelligent inference into a serious motor issue... we are the same way... w/ as many "scientific" papers as there are out there and as many arguments as there are it's obvious... we don't know... science will eventually prove out but noone seems to know enough to shut everyone else up... so to that point i will keep on doing what i'm doing until something cheaper or better comes along than fossil fuels

Jorski
06-13-2008, 04:38 PM
70% of the Earth is covered by water which leaves only 12.5% inhabitable by humans... So... me believing that 12.5% of all the Earth's surface which is inhabited by humans (who at most estimates have inhabited the Earth only .5% of the Earth's current life) are going to significantly alter it... just don't buy it.

Wake..

The earth cares very little about how long we have occupied it. It is a matter of the load that the planet/atmosphere can handle. An analogy, would be the weight that your boat can float. Once it is overloaded, it sinks; time is not a factor. This is the case with co2 because it lasts so long (hundreds of years...at least). For you math types, it is the area under the curve as opposed to the height of the curve.

Your argument about the amount of the earth's surface that is water versus land is a big part of the problem, not proof of the opposite.

Trees and plants are only things that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. They can only grow on land, which as you point out is small fraction of the surface area that lies under the atmosphere. CO2, though, can move about the entire area of the atmosphere as it is not land bound. So what we have is in essence a very small filter to clean what has become a very large problem.

Beyond that, we as humans, don't do very well with processing large scale problems. For example, your statement suggests that we are hardly using very much of the Earth, when infact we occupy a great deal of the planet.

If you take the surface area of the planet, and divide it pro rata, you get some quite frightening realities as to just how much population we have pressing against the planet's limits.

1) The surface area of planet earth:
510,065,600 km of which 148,939,100 km� (29.2 %) is land and 361,126,400 km� (70.8 %) is water.


2) Current population:
6,677,602,292 people

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html

3) Total surface area per capita:
.0769 square kilometers or if you wish to think in terms of acreage, about 18.9 acres per person...not as big as you thought huh ?

4) Total surface area of land per capita:
works out to about 5.5 acres of land per person...getting a little tighter now isn't it ?

Okay, so now you have your 5.5 acres. On this plot, you will need to grow your food, deal with your garbage and sustain your pro-rata share of pollution, industry, army, government etc. You will need to protect its' eco-system, animal and human habitat, and of course your fresh water supply.

One more, and I promise, last calculation: Just how much of your land is suitable to grow your food ? According to the CIA, about half of the land is arable, so you can grow food on about 2.75 acres; that is, if it isn't covered by pavement or a building, as surely some of your pro rata arable land is.

The bad news is that arable land is being lost at a rate of 100,000 square kms per year, all the while the population is growing. So your share of arable land is shrinking quite rapidly.

The point of all of this is that we humans make a much bigger footprint than we intuitively think.

I am not picking on you Wake, just pointing out that most of us (including me before I read an article similar to what I have just posted) naturally conclude that we can't be making much of an impact, simply as a matter of scale. It turns out that it just isn't true.

FWIW, I found these numbers to be astounding. You can quite easily do the calculations for yourself, and it is an interesting exercise. An exercise that is not politically biased, or motivated by agenda, just a measurement. And, it's a measurement we can all calculate and verify on our own without relying all those "lying" scientists.:o

shepherd
06-13-2008, 05:51 PM
I've been training my body to breathe CO2, in accordance with Darwin's theory. So, 10,000 years from now, when you guys are all gasping and dying from CO2 poisoning, I'll be taking my evolved lungs and mutated arms to the lake for yet another set behind my nuclear-powered 10,035th Anniversary Prostar.


Suckers! :D

Jorski
06-13-2008, 06:08 PM
ProTour X-9 said:
I do know theres plenty of ways to (get) rid of carbon. Removing it couldn't hurt could it?

Jorski said:
There is not "plenty of ways to get rid of carbon. Removing it, called sequestration, would be very helpful, but we are years away from doing that successfully.


ProTour X-9 then posted "a solution":

Phytoplankton, sinking CO2 underwater,

Heres Popular Science's 10 Ideas to Save the Planet
__________________




Okay,

If you read your own reference it tells you that this is an idea that doesn't exist, and would be almost impossible to implement:

Potential Uh-Ohs: Did we mention the vast quantities of CO2 that humankind currently dumps? It’s about 800 tons a second, enough to fill an oil tanker with CO2 every minute. To reduce current global emissions by even 20 percent, we would need to fill one bag every 11 days. Then there’s the problem of durability. What if a shark sinks its teeth into a bag, for instance, or the material falls apart? There’s no way to be certain that the bags won’t disintegrate after hundreds of years instead of thousands, as predicted.

ETA Keith says CO2 bags could be in place by 2020, pending regulatory hurdles.

wakeX2wake
06-13-2008, 06:10 PM
I've been training my body to breathe CO2, in accordance with Darwin's theory. So, 10,000 years from now, when you guys are all gasping and dying from CO2 poisoning, I'll be taking my evolved lungs and mutated arms to the lake for yet another set behind my nuclear-powered 10,035th Anniversary Prostar.


Suckers! :D

BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I had to let the guy across the hall come read that b/c i honestly laughed about it so hard... great stuff shep

Jorski
06-16-2008, 10:36 AM
"Stick to the science"? Whose science?

Great question!

The science academies of the G8 - yes this includes the U.S. Additionally, the science academies of China and Brazil, among others. Dozens and dozens of scientific agencies.

More than 11,000 scientists signed the climate petition supporting the most recent IPCC report. thousands more university scientists.

Even if you grant places that put together anti-global warming press releases, like the Heartland Institute that their petitions are legit; they claim 500 scientists have published studies that question AGW.

In response, many of those listed have objected and asked to be removed from that list.

But for the sake of argument let's say that is the number. 500 worldwide versus 11,000.

BTW, if you counted the scientists that did the scientific studies included in the IPCC review, you would be in the tens of thousands of scientists who's work supports AWG.

So, there is your answer to "who's science" - virtually everybody's science. The funny thing about the constant claim made, about funding, slanting the results is that there is plenty of money available from oil companies and government that would prefer not to have to deal with global warming expense and regulation.

ProTour X9
06-16-2008, 10:41 AM
Back in the day, didn't most doctors recommend smoking cigarettes?

Jorski
06-16-2008, 02:16 PM
Back in the day, didn't most doctors recommend smoking cigarettes?


And after the required research was done, what did science conclude ?;)

wakeX2wake
06-16-2008, 02:23 PM
.....And the required research was DONE, what did science conclude ?;).....:D

Upper Michigan Prostar190
06-16-2008, 02:25 PM
Think of how much better off the world would be if Steve had not lost his brass hammer......

JimN
06-17-2008, 06:55 AM
This should explain it for all of us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8oe-CSA4wQ